| Patricia Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, Virginia |
|
Patricia Moore-King ("Moore-King") challenges the application of regulations enacted by the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County") affecting fortune tellers on various grounds. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County. |
| Bethel World Outreach v. Montgomery County Council |
|
Bethel World Outreach Ministries brought this action asserting that Montgomery County’s zoning regulations, which prevented Bethel from constructing a church, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all claims. For the rea $0 (01-31-2013 - MD) |
| Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Thomas C. Horne |
|
The defendants have filed interlocutory appeals from an order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff, an association of individual members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and beneficiaries of a charitable religious trust (“FLDS Associationâ€). After granting the defendants’ motion for an emergency stay pendi $0 (11-06-2012 - UT) |
| Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Mississippi |
|
Until the eve of oral argument, the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi, had on its books a zoning ordinance that explicitly singled out “churches†for unfavorable treatment, albeit not for the outright banning of their presence from particular locations. The night before we heard argument, Holly Springs amended its ordinance, this time to ban “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, mos $0 (09-28-2012 - MS) |
| FORTRESS BIBLE CHURCH v. PAUL J. FEINER |
|
20 This appeal concerns a longstanding land-use dispute between |
| Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, Georgia |
|
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. (“Covenantâ€) and its pastor, Frederick T. Anderson, brought an action against the City of Marietta, Georgia, challenging the validity of its zoning ordinance. As pertinent to this appeal, Covenant and Anderson each allege multiple claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPAâ€), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The $0 (09-07-2011 - GA) |
| Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma |
|
We address the “equal terms†provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).1 |
| Sossamon v. Texas |
|
This case presents the question whether the States, by accepting federal funds, consent to waive their sovereign immunity to suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. We hold that they do not. Sovereign immunity therefore bars this suit for damages against the State of Texas. |
| Souhair Khatib v. County of Orange |
|
Recognizing the significance of religious freedom in all aspects of life, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA†or “the Actâ€) to “protect[ ] institutionalized persons who are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government’s permission and accommodation for exerc $0 (03-15-2011 - CA) |
| Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado |
|
The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County (“the Countyâ€), Defendant-Appellant, appeals the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a permanent injunction following a jury verdict for Rocky Mountain Christian Church (“RMCCâ€) on three counts of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPAâ€), 42 U.S. $0 (05-17-2010 - CO) |
| World Outreach Conference Center and Pamela Blossom v. City of Chicago |
|
We have consolidated for decision two cases presenting the recurring issue of the rights of religious organizations to avoid having to comply with local land-use regulations. Analysis requires threading our way through a maze of statutory and constitutional provisions and we begin there, which is to say with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § $0 (12-30-2009 - IL) |
| Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc. v. Kurt Kasson; Mike Collins; Bob Freeman; City of Euless |
|
The Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 110, prevents the state and local Texas governments from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that doing so furthers a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner. In this case, we must decide if the city of Euless, Texas $0 (07-31-2009 - TX) |
| City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ |
|
Tent City 4 is a movable encampment of |
| Pastor Rick Barr v. City of Sinton |
|
The Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) provides that “a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion [unless it] demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest [and] is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.â€1 TRFRA does not immunize $0 (06-19-2009 - TX) |
| Great Lake Society v. Georgetown Charter Township, et al. |
|
In docket number 270031, plaintiff Great Lakes Society (GLS) appeals by leave granted the trial court’s opinion and order affirming defendant Georgetown Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) denial of GLS’s request for a special use permit and for a variance. In docket numbers 280574 and 280577, defendants appeal by leave granted the trial court’s opinion and $0 (10-30-2008 - MI) |
| Carl Eric Olsen v. Michael Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States |
|
Carl Eric Olsen appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief from the federal and Iowa Controlled Substances Acts (CSAs) for his sacramental use of marijuana. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. |
| General Auto Service Station, et al. v. City of Chicago |
|
The plaintiffs-appellants are the owners and the agent of a building in Chicago that for more than four decades has displayed an advertising sign without a permit. Current zoning provisions prohibit the sign given its size and proximity to a residential district, but the plaintiffs contend that because the sign was lawful when first erected, they have a right to continue displaying the sign $0 (05-17-2008 - IL) |
| Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission |
|
This appeal by the named plaintiff, Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. (society), and the plaintiff Pong Me, the society's president, arises from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Newtown (commission) denying the society's application for a special exception to build a Buddhist temple on its property located in the town of Newtown (town $0 (02-12-2008 - CT) |
| The Lighthouse Institute for Envangelism, Inc., etc. v. City of Long Branch, etc. |
|
This appeal requires us to clarify the nature of the constitutional and statutory protections enjoyed by religious assemblies against governmental interference in the form of land-use regulations. The plaintiff/appellants are the Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, which describes itself as "a Christian church that seeks to minister to the poor and disadvantaged in downtown Long Branch, $0 (12-04-2007 - NJ) |
| St. John's United Church of Christ, et al. v. The City of Chicago, et al. |
|
Mention Chicago to almost any person who has been on an airplane, and that person will immediately think of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world: in 2005, more than 76.5 million passengers passed through its facilities, along with 1.7 million tons of freight. See http://www.flychicago.com/events/KidsPage2006/OHareH istory.shtm (last visit $0 (09-17-2007 - IL) |
| Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Young Israel of Bal Harbor, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, et al. |
|
Young Israel of Bal Harbour ("Young Israel") and Midrash Sephardi ("Midrash"), two synagogues serving the Surfside-Bal Harbour-Bay Harbor Islands area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Surfside ("Surfside") on the synagogues' claims challenging the Surfside Zoning Ordinance ("SZO") under the Religious Land Use and $0 (04-27-2004 - FL) |
| Tyrone R. Hammons v. James L. Saffle, Director of Oklahoma Department of Connections |
|
Plaintiff-appellant Tyrone R. Hammons is incarcerated at the Dick Conner Correctional Center in Hominy, Oklahoma. Defendants-appellees James L. Saffle, et al., implemented prison policies in May 1999 and June 2002, prohibiting in-cell possession and use of oils that Hammons uses for his five daily Muslim prayers. Hammons, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a de $0 (11-17-2003 - OK) |
| St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Ellisville v. City of Ellisville, Missouri, et al. |
|
City of Ellisville, Terrance B. Keran, City Engineer, and the Board of Adjustment (collectively "City") appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County permanently enjoining the City of Ellisville from interfering with the erection of a monument sign by St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church in Ellisville ("Church"). City asserts that the trial court's judgment was improper and tha $0 (10-28-2003 - MO) |
| Wyatt v. Cal A. Terhune; Suzan Hubbard |
|
Appellant Earl Wayne Wyatt, a Rastafarian inmate, filed this § 1983 action challenging the California Department of Corrections’ hair length regulations as a violation of his constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of religion and equal protection of the laws. This appeal concerns three procedural issues rather than the merits of Wyatt’s claims. In addressing $0 (01-02-2003 - CA) |
| Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, et al. v. The City of New York, et al. |
|
Defendants-Appellants the City of New York, Bernard Kerik and Rudolph Giuliani (collectively "the City") appeal from an opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lawrence M. McKenna, Judge) entering a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church ("Presbyterian" or "the Church") and ten homeless persons. $0 (06-12-2002 - NY) |
|
Next Page |